Can we count just how many horrid 20th century chapters of humanity this might evoke?

In a move that sounds straight out of Orwell, Amsterdam allocated 1 million euros last week to a plan that would relocate trouble-making neighbors to camps on the outskirts of the city, the BBC reports.

The scum villages, as critics have called them, would lie in isolated areas and provide only basic services to their unwilling residents. According to details of the plan reported by Der Spiegel and the BBC, residents will live in container homes, under the watchful eye of social workers or police. The residents themselves might not make very good company. According to the BBC, theyll include families that engage in repeated, small-scale harassment, like bullying gay neighbors or intimidating police witnesses.

Or perhaps just people whose political and social perspectives annoy the ruling class...

I have been to the Anna Frank house.
Amsterdam is nice to visit.
There is the Van Gogh museum, the Rembrandt house, and the Anna Frank house.
The Red Light district is an interesting display of the depravity in culture.

It might end up working better than it sounds. From the medieval town to the bohemian part of town nowadays, "scum villages" have often provided interstices of freedom. Since only basic services will be allotted, there'll be a real disincentive to make welfare a career option.

In their ignorance and bias, the Amsterdam government might well throw some pretty enterprising folks into the "scum villages" - or people who see that enterprising is the best choice out of a bad lot. The more the "scum villages" are used for political prisoners [i.e., people who've done nothing wrong except holding politically incorrect opinions], the more middle class those "scum villages" will end up becoming. Even a prison camp can be a node of freedom if the guards can't be bothered to do anything except snooze - or get the idea that their jobs become easier by looking the other way.

And, of course, Australia began life as a prison colony - one that was run pretty brutally in its heyday.

I thought it was dirty, and cheesy in general, and stupidly dangerous (Muslims selling drugs all out in the open- bags of coke- which could have been anthrax, specifically targeting white teens—— cops would walk right by, and not do anything, etc). The Anne Frank house was nothing special, and the interactive hologram things inside I thought took away and of the solemness it may have had.

Seemed like a really sad place to live. I saw more Muslims than Dutch people too in Amsterdam.

This is a mixed bag. The key problem here is simple: who determines who is making trouble? Will it be used as a weapon against political opponents? If we know anything about humankind we must answer "yes" to that.

USSR had a similar program. Criminals who were released from prisons after they did their time were not allowed to live within 100 km of Moscow for some period of time. But at least that was a judicial punishment for crime - not just for being poor and illiterate.

The alternative is to allow criminals and beggars to live among - and prey upon - honest citizens. Criminals don't have any other income except crime. That's what every country has now - and crime rates are not that great. Just today, minutes ago, we had an article on FR about a professional troublemaker (perhaps marginally sane) killing a kind-hearted person who wanted to help. At some point the society will want to expel those who don't want to live according to the laws of that society. Andre Norton created her Dipple many years ago, but it still looks like our inevitable future. Asimov's Currents of Space also depicts a layered society - though that one pits aristocracy against peasants. South Africa tried their Apartheid too, with the criteria that were simply based on race.

But I can envision a society that has a number of enclosed, concentric rings. The outer ring contains hardened criminals; the inner ring contains the best and the brightest; and the only criteria for moving between rings (a.k.a. ranks) is the person's abilities. Would that society be good or bad? What if an impersonal, unerring machine makes the most fair judgement ever?

Our cities are already built like that. They were *always* built like that, with ghettos being a forbidden territory for an outsider during the night, and with gated communities being a scary place for someone who does not belong. We are already there; it's just the walls are not there yet, and the guards at the gates are allowing anyone in or out. It will take only a small, gradual change to enforce the new rules. This particular proposal just speaks openly about something that the humanity accepted long ago and was practicing for thousands of years. Only the most recent ideas of "liberté, égalité, fraternité" pushed that old approach away, for a while. The excitement died down, but people still are not comfortable living and working with incompatible individuals. Would you like it if all criminals disappeared in a blink of an eye, being moved somewhere else, into some alternate reality? You wouldn't need to lock your doors, and your children would be as safe as they can be, barring a sudden mental illness of an otherwise good and honest person. A few crimes *are* committed by wealthy non-criminals, but they are a drop in the ocean of crimes committed by lowlifes.

There is a very easy way to build this new, brave world of tiers. Build a private city and put a wall around it. Only members of the city may enter at any time; everyone else needs a pass. The city votes to admit new members or to expel undesirable ones. Since it's all private ("gated") property it's all legal; the city can be owned collectively by all members, just as they own a piece of it in form of their houses or condos. Any human in good standing would be welcome (no racism.) But what about politics? Well, I think that city will be filtering its citizens. For example, one city will have no police, but every citizen has to be armed. Or another city will ban all weapons but will have two police officers per each citizen. (It's your money, spend it on whatever you like :-) I think this is a usable material for a SciFi story, though Robert Heinlein wrote a few already.

23
posted on 12/04/2012 6:35:59 PM PST
by Greysard
(Marxist Law of Distribution of Wealth: Shortages will be divided equally among the peasants.)

They will probably need to put up big signs, in many languages, to inform the public specifically which is the “scum city” and which is the “regular city” as I doubt a cursory glance would be sufficient to ascertain the difference.

26
posted on 12/04/2012 7:03:37 PM PST
by RetiredTexasVet
(The law of unintended consequences is an unforgiving and vindictive b!tch!)

But I can envision a society that has a number of enclosed, concentric rings. The outer ring contains hardened criminals; the inner ring contains the best and the brightest; and the only criteria for moving between rings (a.k.a. ranks) is the person's abilities.

If this were a physical configuration, the "hardened criminals" of the outer ring would end up enclosing and imprisoning the "best and brightest" at the center.

If this were a physical configuration, the "hardened criminals" of the outer ring would end up enclosing and imprisoning the "best and brightest" at the center.

As far as I know, in all societies known to man - except, perhaps, Port Royal - the majority is law-abiding and willing to work. This is simply because otherwise the society would die from hunger. Someone has to grow the crops and bake the bread before some of it can be stolen.

In this thought experiment the circles represent only the logical abstraction. In practice the areas reserved for criminals would be very small. What do they need the land for anyway? Anyone who is honestly working the land does not belong with the criminals.

As others already mentioned, cities like NYC and LA are an ideal locale for resettlement of criminals. Just make sure that the walls around those cities are tall and sturdy :-) Those two cities house about 20 million people today; the USA has far fewer criminals than that; perhaps 1M to 3M, including all the pot smokers and jaywalkers.

Also, scientifically there is no difference between the people inside the walls and those outside the walls. Topologically they are just two separate areas of land. The key difference is in what you can do there. Prisons are not desirable places because prisoners want to go outside and rob someone. A philosopher, with a good Internet connection, would lock the cell from the inside and bar the door - he would be happy there, and please don't disturb him, he has books to read and articles to write.

31
posted on 12/04/2012 7:22:14 PM PST
by Greysard
(Marxist Law of Distribution of Wealth: Shortages will be divided equally among the peasants.)

Thanks. The beauty of it is, there no need to overtly subvert. It just comes naturally from people turning their lives around and busying themselves. As a chaser, they learn that they don't have to depend upon government to get by and get along.

The chances of the "scum villages" turning into real prison camps are actually low. The authorities won't dare as long as the shadow of Naziism still hangs over Europe. If Europeans abide restrictions on their civil liberties to flush out neo-Nazis from their bodies politic, crying "Nazi" is still potent. It'll work for a long time.

At some point the society will want to expel those who don't want to live according to the laws of that society. Andre Norton created her Dipple many years ago, but it still looks like our inevitable future. Asimov's Currents of Space also depicts a layered society - though that one pits aristocracy against peasants. South Africa tried their Apartheid too, with the criteria that were simply based on race.

If I remember correctly, RAH devised a future society where those who broke its rules were expelled into a "reservation" called Coventry. If you don't want to live in our society and follow its rules, you don't have to. But we won't support you either.

Makes perfect sense to me, depending on who makes the rules and decides what constitutes breaking them.

For your private city with its own laws, check out Oath of Fealty by Pournelle and Niven.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.